An argument from “The Standards of Faith of the United Methodist Church” part 2

In the last installment, I laid some ground work and began looking at how the Articles of Religion do address the language and theology of the United Methodist Church surrounding questions surrounding homosexuality. This is a continuation of what began there, so feel free to take a moment and give it a read if you have not.


In the first installment, we looked at how the verses in Leviticus related to the Articles of Religion, specifically Article VI. There is an interesting thing that goes on in Leviticus chapter 18 though. We looked specifically at verse 22 as one of several prohibited sexual actions in the particular section, but there is an oddity if we look to verse 21. For 20 verses we have prohibited sexual actions, then we get verse 21 about sacrificing children to Molech, then back to verse 22 and more sexual immorality. Some have speculated that because of this, verse 22 must then refer to cultic prostitution which was common in the time. On the surface that seems to make sense which would mean that the prohibition was linked to prostitution and idol worship and not a general prohibition.

The first thing we must understand is who was Molech? Molech was the fire God of the Ammonites that were in the promised land before God let the people of Israel there.  Some of the details of Molech worship are disturbing, but necessary to understand for our purposes. Men and women dedicated as priests and priestesses to Molech (read prostitutes) would offer themselves for money, but only to members of the same sex. In fact, these ceremonies would be limited to single sex only. The men would have a ceremony, separate from the women, and vice versa. Children were then sacrificed to the ‘god’ in fire, or sometimes passed through the fire as a dedication to him as priests later in their lives. Animals, often dogs, were also offered for sexual pleasure of the celebrants, the price of which would go to the priests, while other proceeds went to the ‘god’. The argument goes that the prohibition here is only about idol worship which would mean then that same sex committed relationships would be ok.

All of that sounds convincing for a minute until you look at it in the context of the whole of scripture. When we get to chapter 20 of Leviticus, which is the section that deals with penalties for previously mentioned violations of the word of God we find a section that deals specifically with Molech worship (verses 3-5). In said section you see no mention of sex whatsoever. We also find a section dealing specifically with the punishments for sexual sin (verses 10-21). It is in this section that we find the penalty for the sin of two of the same gender engaging in sexual contact. Because of this, even if the order of verses in chapter 19 seems to indicate the prohibition may only be for cultic worship, chapter 20 makes clear by the divisions of topics that the prohibition was not limited to religious life, but a general prohibition against the activity under any circumstance. There is always a danger of taking a verse or two out of context, and claiming that the prohibition of same sex activities in Leviticus is limited to cult practices is such a time. Upon examination, the assertion that the verses in Leviticus are related to cultic prostitution do not hold up to scrutiny and are covered under Article VI.

From a consistency standpoint, the argument applied here that the prohibition was only for cultic practices, would lead us to some twisted and sick beliefs. If verse 22 only applies to cultic worship, then certainly verse 21 which deals specifically with sacrificing or dedicating children to Molech does as well. Should we then infer that it is ok to sacrifice children by fire so long as it is not to Molech? Of course not. It is understood here that this is a broad prohibition against sacrificing or consecrating children at anytime as the very act itself is sin. It is not sin because the sacrifice is to Molech, it is sin because a child is sacrificed. Would we say that sex with animals is acceptable so long as it is not in worship to Molech? Of course not. Again, this is seen as a broad prohibition. I see little reason to not apply the same consistency to sex between two of the same gender. The sex between those of the same gender during Molech worship is not sin because it’s worship of Molech, it is sin in general. Treating sex between two of the same gender differently than anything else in the surrounding verses makes little sense then, and does not show a consistently interpretive method to scripture. Again, this is confirmed by the passage in chapter 20.

As I mentioned, there is a danger with taking a couple of verses alone devoid of context. The whole of scripture in general, and, at the very least, the whole section of scripture that one is dealing with, must be considered. If one tries to say that sex between two of the same gender is only a cultural prohibition, they need to ignore the context that the prohibition is in. The other prohibitions in the area are not thought of as cultural to the Jews, so why should this prohibition be thought that way? If one tries to say that the prohibition is only related to cultic worship, then not only does the rest of the section of scripture it is found in need to be ignored, as the context of this section is sexual sin, they need to ignore the other prohibitions that apply here on child sacrifice and sexual relations with animals. The point here is that there is no way to separate these verses from their context and still maintain any sort of consistent approach to scripture. Because of this, their place as moral commands by God stands, thus they are indeed covered in the Articles of Religion.

Inevitably something about different interpretations will come up. First understand that just because someone has a different interpretation does not automatically make it valid or make it’s methodology good. I could interpret the worship of Molech as referring to a love of modern Disney movies. That doesn’t mean it is consistent or valid. The interpretations that present sex between two of the same gender as anything other than sin are not consistent in the approach that they take. They artificially separate the verses out of their context and then treat then differently than the other verses that surround them. This is generally a poor interpretive method. Despite what some may say, matters of sexual morality are addressed in the articles of religion, and as such, do strike at the root of Methodism.

Coming next a look at some of the New Testament verses that deal with the topic in the light of United Methodist Church standards of faith. This continues here.



You Might Also Like

5 Replies to “An argument from “The Standards of Faith of the United Methodist Church” part 2”

  1. Scott, rock solid article. I look forward to the other parts.

    Sadly our Progressive friends don’t have the skill-set to be in the deep end of the critical thinking pool and thrash around in the shallow end lest they drown.

    Makes it tough to engage them but I appreciate the effort.


  2. speaking the truth in love. James 5:19 My brothers(and sisters) if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.…

  3. In light of this 2017 report, things don’t look all bad.

    Sure, there is a 12% drop in membership in North America in 10 years. But there is an overall increase worldwide by 12%.

    And interestingly, on
    Paid on Apportionments to All General Funds, 1994-2016*

    Only 84.4% paid in 1994.
    But 91.9% paid in 2016.

    So members must think something is better, or they are just doing better economically.

    So, the obvious questions to ask directly of the LGBTQ community in the Methodist Church – “What % of members are in the LGBTQ category? What % of those just can’t live with the current status quo? What % are so upset, that they just can’t accept status quo? What % are satisfied with a civil marriage, and what % just have to have a church wedding? What % are clergy or Bishops?”

    I would like to see a survey like that taken by this “Way Forward” group. Plenty of time, since they have till 2019 to decide their findings.

    The survey should be of LGBTQ Methodist members only.
    NOT the none-LGBQT members. I have a feeling that the majority of very militant advocates of this are either outside advocates (non-UMC), or – excuse the phrase – super liberal, self-perceived do-gooder types, that want to burn the house down to save the “principle” of acceptance of all.

    This, considering that “all” are already accepted, including taking communion. We are talking only of the expansion of clergy, and gay marriage within the church. Nothing else.

    I would also like to see a question included in a survey of LGBTQ Methodist members only, that asks, “Eliminating the phrase ‘homosexual lifestyle is contrary to Christian teaching’ from the BoD, if it results in the breakup of UMC as it currently stands, do you favor or oppose the change?”

    My guess is that the answers to the survey will only include a small % of the LGBTQ Methodist community that wants to burn the house down to eliminate the phrase.

    BTW – I still favor gay marriage within UMC, and gay clergy. But not at the expense of destroying a good thing (UMC). I suspect the majority of the gay Methodist may feel the same way. I suspect that the agenda for “change or else”, is coming from mostly non-members, or members that are not gay, but think they are on a holy crusade. Either way, I think it would be important to get anonymous survey data from the actual LGBTQ Methodist community, and not just from politically driven “do-gooder” members, and non-members.

    My 2 cents worth.

  4. Then ask yourself the question, “What is the tipping point to split the UMC?” If 10% of UMC members are gay, but only 10% of them want change or else, then you are destroying the UMC for 1% of the LGBTQ Methodist membership. If UMC doesn’t accept gay marriage, then we are in the same boat as the Catholics. Not that bad off. Super-liberal, politically motivated, left wing activists ought to go bug the Catholics more, and leave the Methodists alone.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.